DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

STATE OF MICHIGAN

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Michigan ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Michigan

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Risk Management / Claims Administrator]
[Hospital / Medical Group / Insurance Company Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM
Patient/Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date(s) of Negligent Care: [Date or Date Range]
Healthcare Provider(s): [Provider Name(s)]
Facility: [Hospital/Clinic Name]
Claim Number: [If assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with the medical malpractice that occurred during [his/her] care and treatment at [Facility Name] by [Healthcare Provider Name(s)].

NOTICE: THIS LETTER CONSTITUTES A NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO M.C.L. SECTION 600.2912b.

This notice initiates the 182-day pre-suit notice period required by Michigan law.

I. MICHIGAN-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Notice of Intent Requirement - CRITICAL

THIS NOTICE IS PROVIDED PURSUANT TO M.C.L. SECTION 600.2912b

Under Michigan law, a plaintiff must provide written notice of intent to file a medical malpractice claim at least 182 days before filing suit. This notice must contain:

1. The factual basis for the claim;
2. The applicable standard of care;
3. The manner in which the standard of care was breached;
4. The actions that should have been taken to achieve compliance;
5. The manner in which the breach caused the injury; and
6. The names of all healthcare providers to whom notices are being sent.

M.C.L. Section 600.2912b(4).

This letter satisfies the statutory requirements and contains all required elements.

The 182-day notice period tolls the statute of limitations. M.C.L. Section 600.5856(c).

B. Statute of Limitations and Repose

Under M.C.L. Section 600.5805(6), the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims is the later of:

1. Two (2) years from the date of the act or omission; OR
2. Six (6) months from the date the plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, the claim.

However, the claim must be filed within six (6) years of the date of the act or omission (statute of repose), except in cases of fraudulent concealment or where a foreign object is left in the body. M.C.L. Section 600.5838a.

Discovery Rule: The limitations period begins when the plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, that the injury might have been caused by medical malpractice. Moll v. Abbott Laboratories, 444 Mich. 1 (1993).

Minor Tolling: For minors under age 8 at the time of the malpractice, the statute of limitations is extended until the child's 10th birthday or 6 months after discovery, whichever is later. M.C.L. Section 600.5851(7).

C. Affidavit of Merit Requirement

Under M.C.L. Section 600.2912d, a medical malpractice complaint must be accompanied by an Affidavit of Merit signed by a qualified healthcare professional who has:

1. Reviewed the medical records and other relevant materials;
2. Concluded that the standard of care was breached; and
3. Concluded that the breach was a proximate cause of the injury.

Expert Qualifications (M.C.L. Section 600.2169): The expert must:
- Be licensed in the same specialty as the defendant (or a related specialty);
- Have practiced or taught in that specialty during the year immediately preceding the occurrence;
- Be board certified if the defendant is board certified.

We have obtained a qualified expert opinion supporting this claim.

D. Modified Comparative Negligence

Michigan follows a modified comparative negligence standard under M.C.L. Section 600.2959. A plaintiff may recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault, but if the plaintiff's fault is greater than 50%, recovery is completely barred.

Our client exercised all reasonable care in connection with [his/her] medical treatment and bears no fault for the injuries sustained.

E. Damage Caps

Michigan imposes caps on non-economic damages under M.C.L. Section 600.1483:

Standard Cap (adjusted annually):
- Approximately $485,800 for injuries occurring in 2024

Higher Cap for Permanent Loss of Vital Function:
- Approximately $868,640 for injuries occurring in 2024

These caps apply to:
- Permanent loss of a vital bodily function
- Permanent serious disfigurement
- Death

Economic damages are not capped.

Note: Caps are adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index. Verify current amounts.

II. STATEMENT OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO M.C.L. 600.2912b(4)

A. Factual Basis for the Claim

[Provide detailed statement of facts - this is required by statute]

[Client Name], a [age]-year-old [male/female], was a patient of [Healthcare Provider(s)] at [Facility Name] from [dates]. [He/She] presented with [condition/complaint].

Chronology of Events:

[Date/Time]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date/Time]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date/Time]: [Describe what occurred]

[Continue with detailed chronology]

B. Applicable Standard of Care

The applicable standard of care required [Defendant Healthcare Provider(s)] to:

1. [Specific standard 1 - e.g., "Perform a complete physical examination and obtain appropriate diagnostic studies when presented with symptoms of [condition]"]

2. [Specific standard 2 - e.g., "Timely diagnose [condition] based on the clinical findings and test results"]

3. [Specific standard 3 - e.g., "Provide appropriate treatment for [condition] according to accepted medical practice"]

4. [Specific standard 4 - e.g., "Adequately monitor the patient's condition and respond appropriately to changes"]

5. [Additional standards as applicable]

C. Manner in Which Standard of Care Was Breached

[Defendant Healthcare Provider(s)] breached the applicable standard of care in the following ways:

Breach 1: [Detailed description of first breach]

Breach 2: [Detailed description of second breach]

Breach 3: [Additional breaches as applicable]

D. Actions That Should Have Been Taken

To comply with the applicable standard of care, [Defendant Healthcare Provider(s)] should have:

1. [Specific action 1 that should have been taken]
2. [Specific action 2 that should have been taken]
3. [Specific action 3 that should have been taken]
4. [Additional actions as applicable]

E. Manner in Which Breach Caused Injury

The defendant's breach of the standard of care caused [Client Name]'s injuries as follows:

[Detailed explanation of causal connection between breach and injury]

Had the defendant(s) complied with the standard of care by [describe proper action], [describe what would have occurred - e.g., "the condition would have been timely diagnosed and treated," "the surgical complication would have been avoided," etc.].

F. Healthcare Providers Receiving Notice

Notice is being sent to the following healthcare providers:

1. [Provider Name], [Address]
2. [Provider Name], [Address]
3. [Facility Name], [Address]
4. [Insurance Carrier], [Address]

III. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to the care and treatment of [Client Name], including but not limited to:

• Complete medical records (paper and electronic)
• All versions of electronic medical records (including audit trails)
• Nursing notes, medication administration records, and flow sheets
• All diagnostic imaging studies and reports
• Laboratory results and pathology reports
• Operative reports and anesthesia records
• Informed consent documents
• Patient correspondence and communications
• Incident/occurrence reports
• Policies, procedures, and protocols in effect at the time of treatment
• Credentialing files for involved healthcare providers
• Staffing records and schedules
• Equipment maintenance records

Michigan courts recognize claims for spoliation of evidence. Destruction or alteration of evidence may result in adverse inference instructions and sanctions.

IV. EXPERT CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to M.C.L. Section 600.2912d, we hereby certify that we have obtained the opinion of a qualified healthcare professional who has:

1. Reviewed the medical records and other relevant materials;
2. Concluded that the applicable standard of care was breached by the defendant(s); and
3. Concluded that the breach was a proximate cause of [Client Name]'s injuries.

The expert is qualified under M.C.L. Section 600.2169 and will provide testimony at trial.

V. CAUSATION

A. Causation Standard in Michigan

Under Michigan law, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's breach of the standard of care was both the cause in fact and a proximate cause of the injury. Weymers v. Khera, 454 Mich. 639 (1997).

But for the defendant's negligence, our client would not have suffered the injuries described herein.

B. Loss of Chance Doctrine

Michigan does not recognize the loss of chance doctrine as an independent cause of action. Falcon v. Memorial Hospital, 436 Mich. 443 (1990). A plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the injury.

However, loss of chance evidence may be relevant to damages in cases where the plaintiff can establish causation. Id.

C. Res Ipsa Loquitur

[If applicable:] The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to this case. Under Michigan law, res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence when: (1) the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the instrumentality was within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to the event. Jones v. Porretta, 428 Mich. 132 (1987).

VI. VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND HOSPITAL LIABILITY

A. Respondeat Superior

Under Michigan law, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Grewe v. Mount Clemens General Hospital, 404 Mich. 240 (1978).

B. Apparent Agency / Ostensible Agency

Michigan recognizes the doctrine of apparent agency for hospital liability. A hospital may be held liable for the negligence of independent contractor physicians if: (1) the hospital held out the physician as its agent; (2) the patient reasonably relied on that representation; and (3) the patient was injured as a result. Grewe v. Mount Clemens General Hospital, 404 Mich. 240 (1978).

C. Corporate Negligence

Michigan recognizes claims for direct hospital negligence based on:
- Negligent credentialing or supervision of medical staff
- Failure to maintain adequate policies and procedures
- Failure to maintain safe facilities and equipment

D. Government Immunity

Michigan Governmental Tort Liability Act: Claims against governmental hospitals and entities are governed by M.C.L. Section 691.1401 et seq., which provides limited immunity.

Medical malpractice claims against public hospitals are generally not subject to governmental immunity if the claim arises from the provision of medical care. M.C.L. Section 691.1407(4).

VII. INFORMED CONSENT

A. Michigan Informed Consent Standard

Michigan follows a professional standard for informed consent. Under M.C.L. Section 600.2912a, a physician or other healthcare provider must disclose the nature of the procedure, the risks involved, and the alternatives.

B. Required Disclosures

Under M.C.L. Section 600.2912a(1), required disclosures include:
1. The nature of the proposed procedure or treatment;
2. The risks of the proposed procedure or treatment;
3. The alternatives to the proposed procedure or treatment;
4. The recognized benefits of the proposed procedure or treatment.

C. Informed Consent Breach

[If applicable:] The defendant failed to obtain proper informed consent by failing to disclose [describe undisclosed material information]. Had our client been informed of [the specific risk / alternative treatment], [he/she] would not have consented to the procedure.

VIII. WRONGFUL DEATH (If Applicable)

[If this is a wrongful death case:]

This claim includes a wrongful death action under M.C.L. Section 600.2922. The personal representative of the estate may bring the action on behalf of the estate and beneficiaries.

Recoverable damages include:
- Medical expenses
- Funeral expenses
- Loss of financial support
- Loss of services and society
- Pain and suffering of the decedent before death
- Reasonable compensation for pain and suffering of survivors

IX. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

Past Medical Expenses:

Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]

B. Lost Earnings

C. Non-Economic Damages

Subject to Michigan's statutory cap (approximately $485,800 standard / $868,640 for permanent vital function loss in 2024)

• Physical pain and suffering
• Emotional distress
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• Disfigurement and disability
• Loss of consortium

D. Summary of Damages

X. SETTLEMENT DEMAND AND RESPONSE REQUEST

Based upon the clear breach of the standard of care, the severity of our client's injuries, and the substantial damages, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

Response During Notice Period

Under M.C.L. Section 600.2912b(7), you must respond to this notice within 154 days by notifying us in writing of your acceptance or rejection of the claim.

If the claim is accepted, we should discuss the amount of compensation.

If the claim is rejected, please provide the factual and legal basis for your rejection.

The 182-day notice period expires on [Date]. Absent settlement, we intend to file suit promptly thereafter.

XI. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Complete medical records from all relevant providers
• Medical expense itemization and bills
• Employment and wage loss documentation
• Affidavit of merit (to be filed with complaint)
• Expert curriculum vitae
• HIPAA authorizations

XII. CONCLUSION

This case involves clear medical negligence that caused significant harm to our client. The breach of the standard of care is supported by qualified expert opinion, and the causal connection between the negligence and our client's injuries is direct.

The 182-day notice period provides an opportunity for meaningful settlement discussions. We encourage you to use this time to evaluate the claim carefully and engage in good-faith negotiations.

Please respond as required by statute.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Michigan Bar Number: P[Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
[All Healthcare Providers Identified Above]
File

MICHIGAN-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

182-Day Notice: This is a strict procedural requirement. Failure to provide proper notice or wait the full 182 days before filing can result in dismissal. The notice must contain all required elements under M.C.L. Section 600.2912b(4).

Affidavit of Merit: Must be filed with the complaint. An affidavit of meritorious defense may be filed in response. Ensure the expert meets all qualification requirements under M.C.L. Section 600.2169.

Expert Specialty Matching: Michigan has strict requirements matching the expert's specialty to the defendant's specialty. Board certification requirements also apply.

No Loss of Chance: Unlike some states, Michigan does not recognize loss of chance as an independent cause of action. This affects strategy in delayed diagnosis cases.

Damage Caps: Verify current cap amounts - they are adjusted annually. The higher cap applies for permanent loss of vital bodily function.

Tolling: The 182-day notice period tolls the statute of limitations. Carefully track deadlines.

Response Requirement: The defendant must respond within 154 days accepting or rejecting the claim. If rejected, the response must state the reasons.

This template must be customized for the specific facts of your case. Michigan's pre-suit notice requirements are strictly enforced. Consult with experienced Michigan medical malpractice counsel.